This Is The Florida Law That Let George Zimmerman Shoot Trayvon Martin Without Getting Charged For Murder

Ever since the
shooting death of Trayvon Martin, a black teenager, by George
Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman who pursued him on foot, much
of the commentary has revolved around whether Florida's
controversial 'Stand Your Ground' law played a role in the
tragedy.

The law is an extension fo the "Castle Doctrine" which allows
people to defend themselves with deadly force against a home
intruder.

Stand Your Ground laws empower citizens to defend
themselves–using deadly force–if they reasonably believe their
life or the lives of others are in danger, or to prevent a
forcible felony.

776.012 Use of force in defense of
person.—...... a person is justified in the
use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat
if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is
necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to
himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent
commission of a forcible felony; or

.... .

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful
activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she
has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to
stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including
deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is
necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to
himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a
forcible felony.

...

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The
justification described in the preceding sections of this
chapter is not available to a person who: ....

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or
herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes
that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily
harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable
means to escape such danger other than the use of force which
is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the
assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical
contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the
assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the
use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of
force.

So what does that mean in this case?

First, it should be mentioned that there is much that seems
unclear from the police report and the evidence at hand.
Zimmerman's full testimony has not been heard. We know that
Zimmerman called 911 to report Martin's presence on the street as
suspicious. We know that against the dispatcher's instruction,
Zimmerman pursued Martin, the two of them got into some kind of
fight–Zimmerman had grass stains on his back and blood on the
back of his head, but we know of no visit to a hospital for these
injuries. At some point Zimmerman shot Martin, killing him.

Yesterday, former Florida Governor, Jeb
Bush said
he didn't believe the Stand Your Ground
law applied in the Trayvon Martin case: “This
law does not apply to this particular circumstance… Stand
your ground means stand your ground. It doesn’t mean chase after
somebody who’s turned their back.”

Zimmerman claimed that he shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense,
and the Sanford police seem to have accepted that assertion,
labeling the case a justifiable homicide.

But the 911 tapes reveal that when Zimmerman decided to pursue
Martin, it was based only on the fact that Martin looked
"suspicious" and had something in his hand. (It turned out to be
a can of iced tea.)

Unless Zimmerman turned back to his truck and retreated from his
pursuit, and Martin then jumped him from behind that would mean,
that Stand Your Ground likely apply to Zimmerman since he
"initially provoked the use of force against himself."

The law still wouldn't apply to Zimmerman if he got into some
kind of fistfight with Martin, and he lost the upper hand. Police
reports say that Zimmerman had grass stains on the back of his
shirt, and blood on the back of his head after the
confrontation. Zimmerman again would have been
the one initiating it by getting out of his car and pursuing
Martin aggressively.

If Martin somehow was aware of Zimmerman's gun, the Stand
Your Ground law may have applied to him, as any
reasonable person would assume that a man aggressively chasing
you with a gun and initiating a fight may have the intention of
killing you.

In other words, if police arrived on the scene and Zimmerman was
dead, Martin may have been justified under Stand Your
Ground.

It is possible that even if the Stand Your Ground law does not
apply to Zimmerman in these circumstances, its existence
discourages police from charging someone with murder when they've
claimed self-defense, since a Stand Your Ground defense puts the
burden on prosecutors to prove that a person did not retreat and
clearly communicate their intentions to cease a conflict, or that
they did initially provoke the use of force against
themselves.

It is also possible that a person with a murderous intentions
could have known about the law and felt empowered to pursue a
confrontation with confidence that he wouldn't be charged with
murder if there was any reasonable way he could claim
self-defense.

Unless new facts come to light, it does seem that Jeb Bush has a
point: the Stand Your Ground law does not seem to apply to George
Zimmerman.